Sunday, February 21, 2010
6:00 PM
Liberal: a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favouring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behaviour of others; broad-minded.
Note that the first definition implies that while a truly liberal-minded man isn't restricted by old institutions, nor is he obliged to disagree with them. St. Thomas Aquinas said, 'Argument by authority is the weakest, according to Boethius.' (forgive my lame Scholastic humour in thinking that quotation is hysterically funny), yet in spite of his odd way of stating that truth, he followed the principle to the hilt. Every stand St. Thomas took, he fought for. He neither rested on the laurels of other Church Doctors, nor trusted that others would accept his personal interpretation of Scripture as infallible. Hence, the greatness of the Summa is in the angelic Doctor's rational Respondeo, not in the authoritative Sed Contra. So goes the Roman Catholic tradition of a truly liberal education.
In the second definition, one sees that the liberal is he who will vote for reform, not for change of just any kind. Wilberforce was liberal in promoting the end of slavery; it would not be liberal of anyone to now promote its return, just because it would be a change.
Yet, there is a certain party sitting on the Left hand of power which audaciously believes itself entitled to the honour of the term 'liberal'. Why does this adjective suit them? Is it because of their tolerance of others, their freedom from bigotry?
Glancing at 'liberalism' in Christian churches:
11/01/2008
An Anglican bishop for Labrador and eastern Newfoundland called on his priests to disclose any involvement with a breakaway organization led by his predecessor, and do the right thing by resigning, giving up their licences to serve as ministers.
In a letter to parish priests in the diocese last month, Bishop Cyrus Pitman wrote that all ordination licences would be reissued with a mandatory renewing of vows in St. John’s Jan. 21.
The letter leads off by referencing the former diocesan bishop, Donald Harvey of St. John’s , and that his recent actions have “implications for this diocese ..., for the Anglican Church of Canada, and possibly for the wider Anglican community.”
Harvey retired three years ago, and became known for his frustration with what he feels is a liberal agenda in the church, particularly not taking a stand against same-sex blessings. [(http://www.thewesternstar.com/index.cfm?sid=96833&sc=23)]
Forcing a minister to give up his ability to serve as a pastor for agreeing with the former bishop and his church’s immemorial interpretation of Scripture isn’t exactly tolerant, but then this is the same party that believes it is more important to protect a woman’s—and a man’s—right to sexual licence, over a child’s right to life. This repression of religious faith is just one brick in the ‘liberal’ monopolization of one’s freedom. The only resemblance leftists bear to true liberality is that they tend to beat their skulls against the foundations of the eternal, then call it innovation.
The principles of all schools and revolutions age, and it is time for the leftists to see that now they are old. The next reforms will be the overturn of Roe v. Wade, liberty of expression restored for Christians, and the understanding that freedom is the ability to do and say what is true and good, not what is false and licentious. At the turn of the next tide, the new revolutionaries will be authentically liberal.
Note that the first definition implies that while a truly liberal-minded man isn't restricted by old institutions, nor is he obliged to disagree with them. St. Thomas Aquinas said, 'Argument by authority is the weakest, according to Boethius.' (forgive my lame Scholastic humour in thinking that quotation is hysterically funny), yet in spite of his odd way of stating that truth, he followed the principle to the hilt. Every stand St. Thomas took, he fought for. He neither rested on the laurels of other Church Doctors, nor trusted that others would accept his personal interpretation of Scripture as infallible. Hence, the greatness of the Summa is in the angelic Doctor's rational Respondeo, not in the authoritative Sed Contra. So goes the Roman Catholic tradition of a truly liberal education.
In the second definition, one sees that the liberal is he who will vote for reform, not for change of just any kind. Wilberforce was liberal in promoting the end of slavery; it would not be liberal of anyone to now promote its return, just because it would be a change.
Yet, there is a certain party sitting on the Left hand of power which audaciously believes itself entitled to the honour of the term 'liberal'. Why does this adjective suit them? Is it because of their tolerance of others, their freedom from bigotry?
Glancing at 'liberalism' in Christian churches:
11/01/2008
An Anglican bishop for Labrador and eastern Newfoundland called on his priests to disclose any involvement with a breakaway organization led by his predecessor, and do the right thing by resigning, giving up their licences to serve as ministers.
In a letter to parish priests in the diocese last month, Bishop Cyrus Pitman wrote that all ordination licences would be reissued with a mandatory renewing of vows in St. John’s Jan. 21.
The letter leads off by referencing the former diocesan bishop, Donald Harvey of St. John’s , and that his recent actions have “implications for this diocese ..., for the Anglican Church of Canada, and possibly for the wider Anglican community.”
Harvey retired three years ago, and became known for his frustration with what he feels is a liberal agenda in the church, particularly not taking a stand against same-sex blessings. [(http://www.thewesternstar.com/index.cfm?sid=96833&sc=23)]
Forcing a minister to give up his ability to serve as a pastor for agreeing with the former bishop and his church’s immemorial interpretation of Scripture isn’t exactly tolerant, but then this is the same party that believes it is more important to protect a woman’s—and a man’s—right to sexual licence, over a child’s right to life. This repression of religious faith is just one brick in the ‘liberal’ monopolization of one’s freedom. The only resemblance leftists bear to true liberality is that they tend to beat their skulls against the foundations of the eternal, then call it innovation.
The principles of all schools and revolutions age, and it is time for the leftists to see that now they are old. The next reforms will be the overturn of Roe v. Wade, liberty of expression restored for Christians, and the understanding that freedom is the ability to do and say what is true and good, not what is false and licentious. At the turn of the next tide, the new revolutionaries will be authentically liberal.
Labels:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Jacobitess
- Warsaw, Poland
- Domine, spero quia mundum vicisti. Lord, I trust that Thou hast overcome the world. Panie, ufam, żeś pokonał świat.
0 comments:
Post a Comment